Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #380602 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-01-22 01:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-01-25 15:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 649 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 01:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-22 02:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-21 21:48 -0500
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 05:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-22 09:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-22 16:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 20:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-22 13:22 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 22:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-22 14:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:44 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 00:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 20:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-22 21:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-22 23:37 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 00:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-23 06:54 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 06:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 15:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-22 20:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-23 06:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-23 09:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 21:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 22:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 07:58 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 21:55 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 20:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-25 00:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 01:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 16:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:03 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 11:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-23 17:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 21:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 14:51 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:16 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:02 +0100
C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:25 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 08:25 +0000
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 10:09 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:13 +0100
Re: C/CPP macro conventions (was Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-25 23:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 18:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 14:23 -0500
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 20:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 22:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:37 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-24 12:24 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:38 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:42 +0100
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 17:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 18:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 22:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:52 -0800
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 20:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-25 00:01 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 13:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 14:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 16:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 13:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 11:35 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:09 +0100
Unix shell conditionals (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:38 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 21:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 22:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 22:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-23 23:46 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 14:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 19:45 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:28 +0100
Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 19:32 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 20:18 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2024-01-24 07:49 -0700
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 15:07 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 15:17 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 15:46 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 19:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 20:57 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:17 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 12:13 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 14:57 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:17 +0100
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 15:52 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 16:14 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 11:27 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 18:06 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 19:35 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 15:56 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 12:09 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 22:00 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 00:29 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:47 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:35 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:41 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 03:13 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:37 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-26 05:48 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 23:51 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:35 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:40 -0800
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 00:06 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 12:37 +0100
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-25 22:55 +0000
Re: Python (Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-24 13:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 12:13 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 22:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-23 22:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-23 22:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:10 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 23:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 16:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 17:32 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 02:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 23:56 -0500
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 05:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 21:43 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 06:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 14:14 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:19 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 07:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-23 23:26 -0500
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 20:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:15 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 19:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 09:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 14:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 21:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 22:13 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:44 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 01:37 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-25 02:20 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:23 -0800
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 11:58 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 02:49 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 17:44 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 17:27 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-24 20:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-24 20:31 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:53 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:24 +0000
Re: COBOL (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 18:21 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 22:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 23:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 15:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-24 13:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-24 14:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 14:54 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 08:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-24 20:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 13:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 09:57 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 21:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:18 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 15:59 +0100
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 21:22 +0000
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:17 +0100
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:28 +0000
Re: Compose Key (was Re: iso646.h) Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-27 22:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 20:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 21:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 20:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 21:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 21:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 22:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-26 01:19 +0000
Operators (Algol 68) (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:08 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-25 00:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 17:07 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 14:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 16:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-25 17:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 21:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 02:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 18:31 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 19:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 12:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:22 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 20:14 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 14:09 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:10 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:44 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:49 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 00:22 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:18 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 02:06 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:35 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:40 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 09:52 +0100
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:13 +0000
Re: Functional Programming (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-28 01:31 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 21:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 22:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 22:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 15:41 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 23:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 16:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-26 23:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:27 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 00:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:09 +0100
Re: Localization (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Localization (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 15:57 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 16:58 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 17:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 18:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 19:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:31 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:50 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 20:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 18:47 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 12:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 14:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 00:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 01:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 02:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 13:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 16:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 18:40 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-27 00:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-27 17:24 +0000
Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:04 +0000
[OT] Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Java (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:44 +0000
[OT] Usefulness of OO/C++/features (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 17:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:11 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 12:53 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 20:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 00:31 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 22:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 15:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-29 12:09 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-29 19:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 12:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-29 12:10 -0500
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 12:53 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-27 21:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 00:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 01:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 01:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 13:00 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 16:09 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 19:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 19:49 +0000
Re: Binary Pipelines (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-28 20:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-28 14:54 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 18:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 21:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 13:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 18:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:23 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 12:06 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 21:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 12:53 +0200
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:30 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 18:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 01:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-29 23:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-29 12:10 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 22:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-29 22:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-29 23:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 09:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 14:03 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-30 16:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 16:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-31 01:39 -0500
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 14:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-31 19:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:14 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-31 20:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 01:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 01:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 16:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 23:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:01 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:13 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-02 16:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-02-01 00:52 -0500
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-02-01 00:45 -0500
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 17:25 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 16:55 +0000
Creation era of stdin, stdout, stderr (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-30 19:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 20:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 21:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-02-26 04:20 -0500
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 17:34 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 18:43 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-30 20:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:45 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:20 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:38 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:12 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:42 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 03:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 20:02 -0800
Re: iso646.h dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-02-26 04:18 -0500
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 15:28 +0200
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 15:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 16:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 17:49 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 18:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-30 18:44 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 20:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 14:58 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:39 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 18:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 11:59 -0800
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-30 16:16 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:09 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:11 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 10:35 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:41 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 11:50 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:43 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 13:58 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 15:10 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 19:53 +0200
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 06:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-30 23:18 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:25 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:26 +0200
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:27 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:01 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:24 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 19:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 02:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 07:16 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:17 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 08:33 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 23:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:49 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:10 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:36 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 02:23 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 18:30 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:24 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:07 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:18 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 23:57 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 11:27 -0800
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 12:43 +0200
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 12:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:49 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 17:03 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:49 +0000
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:04 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 16:54 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 09:16 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 15:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 19:36 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 16:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 17:42 +0200
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:58 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 18:18 +0200
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 17:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 17:20 +0000
[OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 20:11 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 19:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 12:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 04:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 07:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:34 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 10:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:47 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:26 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 01:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 18:08 -0800
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 15:04 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-31 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 22:22 +0200
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 20:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-31 23:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-01-31 21:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:27 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:16 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-02-01 13:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 11:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 04:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:22 -0800
[meta] Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:38 +0100
Re: [OT] Unix shells and POSIX shell (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:00 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:22 +0100
Re: iso646.h Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-01 05:17 -0800
Re: Alternative Shells (was Re: iso646.h) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 05:04 +0000
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-01-31 23:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 00:21 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:47 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 01:29 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:42 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:50 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 17:06 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 22:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:13 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:44 +0100
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:35 +0100
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 15:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:23 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 03:26 +0100
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 23:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 01:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:57 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 16:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 15:55 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:41 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:15 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 19:36 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 19:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 22:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:51 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:28 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:47 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 15:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 23:38 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 23:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 05:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:50 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 16:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 18:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 20:59 +0000
Re: iso646.h bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 21:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 22:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:40 -0800
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:31 -0800
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 22:24 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 12:41 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 08:39 -0800
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 12:33 +0100
Re: iso646.h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-02 21:40 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:14 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 16:19 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 18:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:33 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 19:45 +0000
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-24 19:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:30 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 03:56 +0000
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 05:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 07:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 14:29 +0100
Re: iso646.h kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-01-25 15:08 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 16:18 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 11:20 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 12:17 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 07:56 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 23:03 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:06 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-26 18:59 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 20:18 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 23:15 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-26 15:55 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 17:07 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 17:34 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-28 13:02 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 01:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-26 20:43 -0500
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:21 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 03:05 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:34 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-27 11:02 +0000
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-27 12:36 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 18:32 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 19:48 +0100
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-29 19:35 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 21:10 +0100
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 22:27 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 10:05 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-27 17:46 +0100
Re: iso646.h Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-28 20:16 +0100
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-29 17:20 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 10:48 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:48 +0000
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-24 19:52 +0000
Re: iso646.h "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 13:00 -0800
Re: iso646.h Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-25 00:26 +0000
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 01:25 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 12:09 -0800
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 03:46 +0000
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 19:59 -0800
Re: iso646.h Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-25 05:39 +0000
Re: iso646.h Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 09:55 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:19 +0100
Re: iso646.h Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:26 -0800
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 17:12 +0100
Re: iso646.h scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-25 16:22 +0000
Re: iso646.h David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 15:02 +0100
Page 32 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 30 31 [32] 33 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-27 11:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up2m6r$3bh1b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381034 |
On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote: > [...] Personally I wanted just > "function" and for it to be clear from context that here the term did > not mean "subroutine". In my book; there's the "concept function" (mathematical), and the mapping/implementation onto/in a computer (a "calculation routine"). The latter has just different names in different languages and it naturally has different technical details. In any form its purpose is to be an implemented instance of a formal mathematical concept. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-27 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <up2nrk$3bnll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381041 |
On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> [...] Personally I wanted just >> "function" and for it to be clear from context that here the term did >> not mean "subroutine". > > In my book; there's the "concept function" (mathematical), and the > mapping/implementation onto/in a computer (a "calculation routine"). > The latter has just different names in different languages and it > naturally has different technical details. In any form its purpose > is to be an implemented instance of a formal mathematical concept. > > Janis > I don't really see how "Bleep" is any sort of mathematical function. But it is clearly a "subroutine". -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-27 12:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up2prg$3c32r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381043 |
On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> [...] Personally I wanted just
>>> "function" and for it to be clear from context that here the term did
>>> not mean "subroutine".
>>
>> In my book; there's the "concept function" (mathematical), and the
>> mapping/implementation onto/in a computer (a "calculation routine").
>> The latter has just different names in different languages and it
>> naturally has different technical details. In any form its purpose
>> is to be an implemented instance of a formal mathematical concept.
>>
>> Janis
>>
>
> I don't really see how "Bleep" is any sort of mathematical function. But
> it is clearly a "subroutine".
I don't know what that 'Bleep' is that you mention here, but I suppose
that is meant to be some function that is not returning a value but an
acoustic _side effect_. In an Algol representation something like the
function
bleep = (void) void: invoke_tone
Or in Simula or Pascal the return-typeless function (= 'procedure')
procedure bleep
Or in C the function
bleep() { invoke_tone; }
In FORTRAN and BASIC (don't remember) that function was maybe called
"subroutine"?
Nomenclature changes wording but not its underlying character. Use the
terms and models that fit best your goals. Meta-goals may be to clarify
or to muddy the issue or its details.
The term "subroutine" (for me) comprises two aspects; a hierarchical
relation, and a [computation] process character.
I'm unsure whether you wanted to express that functions with return
type void are different from functions that return non-void types and
should thus not be called functions? Other's may say that "subroutine"
is badly chosen since there's not necessarily a hierarchical semantic
when using "procedures" in context of Simula's classes with coroutines.
Or are you saying that any "non-pure" function generally relies on
side-effects and should be considered and named differently? - I'm fine
with it. As long as it's clear what goals we follow, and whether the
nomenclature is appropriate for that specific goal (and not conflicts
with other goals).
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <up8qvp$io5t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381045 |
On 27/01/2024 11:36, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> [...] Personally I wanted just
>>>> "function" and for it to be clear from context that here the term did
>>>> not mean "subroutine".
>>>
>>> In my book; there's the "concept function" (mathematical), and the
>>> mapping/implementation onto/in a computer (a "calculation routine").
>>> The latter has just different names in different languages and it
>>> naturally has different technical details. In any form its purpose
>>> is to be an implemented instance of a formal mathematical concept.
>>>
>>> Janis
>>>
>>
>> I don't really see how "Bleep" is any sort of mathematical function. But
>> it is clearly a "subroutine".
>
> I don't know what that 'Bleep' is that you mention here, but I suppose
> that is meant to be some function that is not returning a value but an
> acoustic _side effect_. In an Algol representation something like the
> function
>
> bleep = (void) void: invoke_tone
>
> Or in Simula or Pascal the return-typeless function (= 'procedure')
>
> procedure bleep
>
> Or in C the function
>
> bleep() { invoke_tone; }
>
> In FORTRAN and BASIC (don't remember) that function was maybe called
> "subroutine"?
>
> Nomenclature changes wording but not its underlying character. Use the
> terms and models that fit best your goals. Meta-goals may be to clarify
> or to muddy the issue or its details.
>
> The term "subroutine" (for me) comprises two aspects; a hierarchical
> relation, and a [computation] process character.
>
Yes, it sort of implied that a subroutine will be called from and return
control to what is ultimately a main routine. Most programs work like
that, but not all.
>
> I'm unsure whether you wanted to express that functions with return
> type void are different from functions that return non-void types and
> should thus not be called functions? Other's may say that "subroutine"
> is badly chosen since there's not necessarily a hierarchical semantic
> when using "procedures" in context of Simula's classes with coroutines.
> Or are you saying that any "non-pure" function generally relies on
> side-effects and should be considered and named differently? - I'm fine
> with it. As long as it's clear what goals we follow, and whether the
> nomenclature is appropriate for that specific goal (and not conflicts
> with other goals).
>
In many languages, including C, there's a difference between functions
that return a value and functions that don't, in that
if (realloc(ptr, 0))
is allowed
whilst
if (free(ptr))
is not. And that's important if you are writing a compiler. In C, it
doesn't capture anything important for the user. You can return values
via the return type or via passed in pointers, and that's not a design
decision with any big implications.
Now in some languages, but not C, realloc() would be a "function" and
free() a "procedure".
What I was saying was that these words already exist, but they aren't
being used in a very useful way, so lets use "function" for subroutines
which calculate something and "procedure" for subroutines which do
something. The we've got all sorts of benefits which are very similar to
both "pure functions" and "functional programming". They're related
ideas but a slightly different take on it.
However because people are so focused on "function shall mean a C
subroutine" the regulars rejected the usage, and insisted that a C
subroutine which calculates something shall be termed a "Malcolm
function". So that's we call them here. A "Malcolm function" is a C
function which is also a mathematical function.
If you separate out the Malcolm functions from the other functions, you
find that the Malcolm functions can be written portably. Which is the
main advantage of doing it.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 19:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up8rtr$ita8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381182 |
On 29/01/2024 19:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 11:36, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> In many languages, including C, there's a difference between functions
> that return a value and functions that don't, in that
In some languages, yes.
>
> if (realloc(ptr, 0))
>
> is allowed
>
> whilst
>
> if (free(ptr))
struct S { int a, b; };
struct S foo(void);
foo() returns a value, but "if (foo())" is not allowed.
C does not make much difference between functions that return a value,
and those that don't. The key distinction is whether the "return"
statement must have an expression or must not have an expression.
I don't disagree that it can be useful to distinguish between different
types of functions. I /do/ disagree with your attempts to classify
them, which I do not think are useful or well-defined categories.
And just because particular terms are used in some other context, does
not mean you get to define them yourself for use in other contexts, or
apply to them to languages that do not use those terms.
A "function" here is a "C function" in terms of the C standard. If you
want to talk about anything else, define what you mean at the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240129112925.302@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #381186 |
On 2024-01-29, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 19:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 11:36, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>
>> In many languages, including C, there's a difference between functions
>> that return a value and functions that don't, in that
>
> In some languages, yes.
>
>>
>> if (realloc(ptr, 0))
>>
>> is allowed
>>
>> whilst
>>
>> if (free(ptr))
>
> struct S { int a, b; };
>
> struct S foo(void);
>
> foo() returns a value, but "if (foo())" is not allowed.
>
> C does not make much difference between functions that return a value,
> and those that don't. The key distinction is whether the "return"
> statement must have an expression or must not have an expression.
Don't forget that we can have:
struct S s = foo();
not to mention
struct S bar(void) { return foo(); }
as well as:
extern bar(struct S);
bar(foo());
none of which patterns is possible if foo returns void.
A void return is qualitatively different. A function which returns
a value can plausibly belong into the functional domain. A function
which returns void is necessarily an imperative procedure.
Even if it does nothing, a void foo() function it is a procedure in that
it cannot be planted into a functional expression like bar(foo()).
So we can identify an emergent category there.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up90o0$jkcu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381187 |
On 29/01/2024 20:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-01-29, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2024 19:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2024 11:36, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In many languages, including C, there's a difference between functions
>>> that return a value and functions that don't, in that
>>
>> In some languages, yes.
>>
>>>
>>> if (realloc(ptr, 0))
>>>
>>> is allowed
>>>
>>> whilst
>>>
>>> if (free(ptr))
>>
>> struct S { int a, b; };
>>
>> struct S foo(void);
>>
>> foo() returns a value, but "if (foo())" is not allowed.
>>
>> C does not make much difference between functions that return a value,
>> and those that don't. The key distinction is whether the "return"
>> statement must have an expression or must not have an expression.
>
> Don't forget that we can have:
>
> struct S s = foo();
>
> not to mention
>
> struct S bar(void) { return foo(); }
>
> as well as:
>
> extern bar(struct S);
>
> bar(foo());
>
> none of which patterns is possible if foo returns void.
Sure. But Malcolm suggested that the "if" pattern was a special
distinguishing feature. (He has already made it clear that the only
types of interest, in his world, are integers, floats and strings.)
>
> A void return is qualitatively different. A function which returns
> a value can plausibly belong into the functional domain. A function
> which returns void is necessarily an imperative procedure.
>
> Even if it does nothing, a void foo() function it is a procedure in that
> it cannot be planted into a functional expression like bar(foo()).
>
> So we can identify an emergent category there.
>
Certainly there is a distinction between void and non-void functions -
but often it is not a particularly important one. What a function does,
what kind of side-effects it has, how its behaviour and values interact
with other parts of the code, how it interacts with other threads, are
far more interesting aspects for classification. (And part of the
interest is that these features are not normally specified in the code.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <up98o0$l025$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381193 |
On 29/01/2024 20:10, David Brown wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 20:35, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-01-29, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2024 19:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2024 11:36, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>> On 27.01.2024 12:02, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/01/2024 10:34, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27.01.2024 04:05, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In many languages, including C, there's a difference between functions
>>>> that return a value and functions that don't, in that
>>>
>>> In some languages, yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> if (realloc(ptr, 0))
>>>>
>>>> is allowed
>>>>
>>>> whilst
>>>>
>>>> if (free(ptr))
>>>
>>> struct S { int a, b; };
>>>
>>> struct S foo(void);
>>>
>>> foo() returns a value, but "if (foo())" is not allowed.
>>>
>>> C does not make much difference between functions that return a value,
>>> and those that don't. The key distinction is whether the "return"
>>> statement must have an expression or must not have an expression.
>>
>> Don't forget that we can have:
>>
>> struct S s = foo();
>>
>> not to mention
>>
>> struct S bar(void) { return foo(); }
>>
>> as well as:
>>
>> extern bar(struct S);
>>
>> bar(foo());
>>
>> none of which patterns is possible if foo returns void.
>
> Sure. But Malcolm suggested that the "if" pattern was a special
> distinguishing feature. (He has already made it clear that the only
> types of interest, in his world, are integers, floats and strings.)
>
No, Malcolm gave if() as an example of a distinction in a language grammar
between functions that return a value and functions that don't. Sometimes
functions return a value and if() still isn't allowed. Fair enough
point.But it doesn't really detract from the point that Malcolm is makin
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-30 10:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upae4r$tstp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381202 |
On 29/01/2024 23:27, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 29/01/2024 20:10, David Brown wrote: >> Sure. But Malcolm suggested that the "if" pattern was a special >> distinguishing feature. (He has already made it clear that the only >> types of interest, in his world, are integers, floats and strings.) >> > No, Malcolm gave if() as an example of a distinction in a language grammar > between functions that return a value and functions that don't. Sometimes > functions return a value and if() still isn't allowed. Fair enough > point.But it doesn't really detract from the point that Malcolm is makin > Fair enough. But that does not detract from my counter-point - I don't think void / non-void return type is a major or helpful way to categorise functions. As you said yourself, there is not a huge difference between a function that returns a value directly, or one that takes a pointer for passing the return value to the caller. And since void / non-void return type is already a distinction made in the way the code is written, it is not as useful a classification as you could get from other factors that are not immediately clear from the code or clear to the compiler (such as "has side-effects" / "depends on side-effects" / "independent of side-effects", or "thread-safe" / "not thread-safe").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-27 17:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up3c08$3evpe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381026 |
On 27/01/2024 01:12, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 26.01.2024 20:18, David Brown wrote: >> On 26/01/2024 18:59, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 26.01.2024 17:06, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 26/01/2024 13:17, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> > > (I don't like the habit of introducing personalized terms like > "Malcolm functions"; this habit exposes more of the person who > introduced it than anything else. And it anyway would only muddy > the issue not clarify.) > I agree. But I'd rather he talked about "Malcolm functions" than just wrote "functions" while meaning something completely different from what everyone else here means by the word. > > (I fear this thread will lead nowhere, but okay, I'll enter...) > I'm trying to snip and skip stuff to reduce the size of the post here. >> A "C function" is different from a "Pascal function", a >> "lambda calculus function", a "Turing machine function", or any other >> kind of function definition you want to pick. > > What relevance has any technical difference of "C functions" > and "Pascal functions"? - None. In Pascal, a "subroutine" (if we may use that as a generic term for now, even though that too can have many different meanings) that returns a value is a "function". If it does not return a value, it is a "procedure". Either may or may not have side-effects. Both are called "functions" in C. Thus there is a difference between "C functions" and "Pascal functions". In comp.lang.pascal, the unqualified term "function" would mean something different from what it means in comp.lang.c. The relevance to the discussion is that there are a vast number of meanings of the term "function", even within the realm of computer programming. > > Note: I don't want you to answer these questions. I suppose > you might have some substantial CS background (I certainly do) > and are not just spreading buzzwords. My university education was in mathematics and computation, so I do have a theoretical background. Since that time, decades ago, my work has been practical rather than theoretical. > Neither the technical (implementation) differences of the first > two types are relevant for the topics that have been discussed, > nor the algorithm theory definitions of the latter two function > types are relevant here. I agree that there are few practical differences between Pascal functions/procedures and C functions. But this is not a discussion about practical implementations of compiled imperative programming languages - it is a discussion about terms, and why it is important to agree on the meaning of the terms. The term "function" means different things in Pascal and C. > >> >>> >>> From my references it seems a consensus at least in that it's >>> reflecting a mathematical f: (x,y,...) -> (u,v,...) which is >>> projected at (or implemented by) some routine/procedure/method/ >>> function, etc. - however it's called in any programming language. >> >> No, that is only one kind of function. > > That is an abstract representation from mathematics (and I am > not interest in syntactic differences to other forms) that can > be directly mapped to an algorithmic representation. It is more general in mathematics to consider it to map one set to another, but we sometimes use multiple parameters for convenience of notation. (It's rare to view the codomain as multiple parts.) > > We write (for example [borrowed from a book]): > > f: R x R x R -> R for the domains; R here: real numbers > > f(r,R,h) -> pi/3 x h x (r^2 + r x R + R^2) > > and in computer languages (for example) syntactic variants of: > > f = (real r, real R, real h) real : > pi/3 * h * (r^2 + r * R + R^2) > > The function from the language closely resembles that from the > mathematic domain. It resembles it in this case - though in important aspects they are very different. However, many real-world C functions don't match closely with a neat mathematical function (mathematical functions don't have side-effects), and many real-world mathematical functions don't match practical C functions. Picking one example where a reasonable match can be made does not mean the two kinds of "function" are similar. > > >> There are all sorts of questions to ask. > > Yes, but not many (none?) of significance in our discussion context > here. > All show that the term "function" can mean a huge number of different things. There is no single "computer science" definition or "accepted common definition" - it's not even a close call. And so if we are going to use that word at all, we have to agree what it means. Since this is comp.lang.c, and since "functions" are central to C, we use the term "function" to mean "C function" unless otherwise /clearly/ stated. >>> >>> How should we get principle insights on 'sizeof', what it is, >>> what it should be, etc., if we stay within this restricted C >>> world terminology, and discussing even a very special type of >>> a, umm.., function (sort of). >>> >> >> Sizeof is not a C function. > > I know it's an operator in C. And I also wasn't saying that it's a > C function. - You still see the "(sort of)" in my statement. And we > already spoke about the close (but not exact) equivalences between > functions and operators. > We certainly won't learn anything about "sizeof" by calling it a "function" or a "mathematical function". >> It is a C operator. If you don't know what >> it is or how it works, or want the technical details, it's all in >> 6.5.3.4 of the C standards. > > If that's all the OP wanted to discuss it would be easy. You don't > even need any C standard document. Open any book, even the old K&R > is sufficient, and look up 'sizeof'. You can read about it being an > operator and fine. File closed. Goodbye. (What for was the original > question of this thread? I seem to recall something about the form > with parenthesis and type?) I have long since forgotten what the question was - we have certainly wandered far from the start of the thread! > >> >> Trying to describe "sizeof" as a function of some sort with a different >> kind of use of the word "function" really doesn't get us anywhere, as >> shown in this thread. It is what it is - trying to mush it into another >> term is not helpful. > > What would be the difference if the parenthesized form would be > called a function, given that functions and operators are similar, > and the context so restricted? The difference is, it would not be a C function. "sizeof" operates at compile time, and it operates on types - either an explicit type, or the type of the expression. It has no run-time behaviour (excluding the somewhat poorly described VLA behaviour). It does not evaluate its operand. It has no prototype or declaration. It cannot be implemented by the user in a free-standing implementation. You cannot take its address. It has no linkage. You cannot use its name as an identifier. > I don't think you can get an address > of it (or can we?); but that again is just another implementation > details (C specific). > > The need for parenthesis in sizeof(type) seems anyway to be only a > hack, necessary for type expressions with blanks, sizeof(struct x) ? > > Janis > > BTW: There was another subthread about preprocessor use for NELEM > determination using sizeof. When I looked up the K&R reference I > saw its use described even as a standard pattern to determine the > number of array elements. No wonder it became idiomatic. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-28 20:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up695s$28q6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381056 |
On 27.01.2024 17:46, David Brown wrote: > [...] FYI: Too long to read at the moment. (Maybe later, maybe not.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-29 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <up8j82$h743$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381142 |
On 28/01/2024 20:16, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 27.01.2024 17:46, David Brown wrote: >> [...] > > FYI: Too long to read at the moment. (Maybe later, maybe not.) > OK. It's off-topic, and just chatter, so if you don't reply I will not feel insulted :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87le8d45ck.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380902 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 24/01/2024 20:33, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 13:54, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>>> Exponentiation is not particularly common in programming, except
>>> for a few special cases - easily written as "x * x", "x * x * x",
>>> "1.0 / x", or "sqrt(x)", which are normally significantly more
>>> efficient than a generic power function or operator would be.
>>>
>> It's pretty common in the sort of programming that I do. But this is
>> fair point. A lot of programs don't apply complex transformations to
>> data in the way that mine typically do.
>
> Different tasks have different programming needs.
>
>>> That is not an argument against having an operator in C called
>>> "pow". It is simply not useful enough for there to be a benefit in
>>> adding it to the language as an operator, when it could (and was)
>>> easily be added as a function in the standard library.
>>>
>>> (It could not have been added as "**", because - as Keith said in
>>> another post - "x ** y" already has a meaning in C. While I
>>> believe it would be possible to distinguish the uses based on the
>>> type of "y", other than for the literal 0, having "x ** y" mean two
>>> /completely/ different things depending on the type of "y" would
>>> not be a good idea for C.)
>>>
>> Yes, ** and ^, which are the two common ASCII fallbacks, are already
>> taken. But as you said earlier, in reality most exponentiation
>> operations are either square or cube, or square root. And in C, that
>> means either special functions or inefficiently converting the
>> exponent into a double. If pow were an operator, that wouldn't be an
>> issue.
>
> It could certainly still be an issue - it depends entirely on how that
> operator were specified, and how it were implemented.
>
> Unlike normal C functions, operators in C can be "overloaded" by
> type. But if there were a "pow" operator that fitted with the style of
> existing C operators, we would have overloads for "T pow T to T",
> where "T" is an integer type (of rank at least that of "int"), or a
> floating point type. We would not see the kinds of overloads that
> would actually be useful beyond what you get with today's "pow"
> function, such as raising floating point numbers to an integer type.
> We would certainly not see efficient shortcuts for common cases at the
> standards level (though implementations could do what they wanted).
If C added an exponentation operator (let's say "^^"), there's no reason
it couldn't distinguish between integer and floating-point exponents.
For the "*" operator, the "usual arithmetic conversions" are performed
on the operands; this converts them to the same type. There is no
integer*floating multiplication operation.
For the "<<" and ">>" operators, there's no need for the operands to be
of the same type. Only the "integer promotions" are performed on each
operand separately, converting narrow integer types to int or unsigned
int. Similarly, there's no need for the operands of an exponentiation
operator to have the same type.
For a hypothetical "^^" exponentation operator, I suggest that:
- Each operand can be of either integer or floating type.
- An operand that is of integer type has the integer promotions applied
to it (promoting narrow integers to int or unsigned int).
- If the right operand is of integer type, the semantics are defined in
terms of repeated multiplication, followed by taking the reciprocal if
the right operand is negative.
- 2 ** 3 == 8
- 2.0 ** 3 == 8.0
- 2.0 ** (-3) == 0.125
- 2 ** (-3) == 0 (since 1/8 == 0 in integer arithmetic).
- If the left operand is of integer type and the right operand is of
floating type, the left operand is promoted to a floating type
(perhaps the type of the right operand).
- If the right operand is of floating type, the semantics are defined as
something like exp(log(x) * y), or perhaps something with better
mathematical behavior.
Thus x^^2 would be a reasonably subsitute for x*x, and could be expected
to perform just as well if the right operand is a constant.
Complex and imaginary types add another layer of *ahem* complexity that
I've ignored here.
As for the operator symbol, a new "pow" keyword (`x pow y`) would have
been fine if it had been added in the 1980s, but it would conflict with
the existing pow() function from <math.h> and break existing code. I
suppose the keyword would have to be _Pow, but that's ugly enough that I
prefer "^^".
Again, there's probably not enough demand to make it likely to appear in
a future C standard, but that doesn't stop me from having ideas of what
it should look like if it is added.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-23 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uopcd0$1f17i$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380684 |
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:32:09 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: > It breaks the rule that, in C, variables and functions are alphnumeric, > whilst operators are symbols. Where is there such a “rule”? > sizeof is an exception, but a justified one. This is how religious people argue: they use circular reasoning to say something is justified because it is justified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-24 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uorpir$1ufp8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380703 |
On 23/01/2024 21:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:32:09 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> It breaks the rule that, in C, variables and functions are alphnumeric, >> whilst operators are symbols. > > Where is there such a “rule”? > Valid function names have to begin with an alphabetical symbol or (annoyingly for me) an underscore, as do variables. They may not contain non-alphanumerical symbols except for underscore. It's in the C standard somewhere. C operators are all non-alphanumerical symbols, with the exception of "sizeof". Again, the operators are listed in the C standard. > >> sizeof is an exception, but a justified one. > > This is how religious people argue: they use circular reasoning to say > something is justified because it is justified. > No. This isn't circular reasoning. It's a claim which hasn't been backed up. It's expected that the reader won't ask for this because it is so obvious that we can give sensible reasons for "sizeof" being a function-like alphabetical word rather than a symbol. But if you do, of course I'm sure someone will provide such a justification. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-24 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uUdsN.304853$xHn7.126105@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #380824 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >On 23/01/2024 21:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:32:09 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> It breaks the rule that, in C, variables and functions are alphnumeric, >>> whilst operators are symbols. >> >> Where is there such a “rule”? > > >Valid function names have to begin with an alphabetical symbol or >(annoyingly for me) an underscore, as do variables. They may not contain >non-alphanumerical symbols except for underscore Dollar symbol ($) is an allowed extension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-24 13:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uortq8$1v575$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380827 |
On 1/24/2024 11:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> On 23/01/2024 21:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:32:09 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>>> It breaks the rule that, in C, variables and functions are alphnumeric, >>>> whilst operators are symbols. >>> >>> Where is there such a “rule”? >>> >> Valid function names have to begin with an alphabetical symbol or >> (annoyingly for me) an underscore, as do variables. They may not contain >> non-alphanumerical symbols except for underscore > > Dollar symbol ($) is an allowed extension. > Big time. For instance Relacy makes use of $: https://www.1024cores.net/home/relacy-race-detector ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uos9qs$20nr3$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380827 |
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 19:52:58 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Dollar symbol ($) is an allowed extension. I wonder if we have DEC to thank for that ... ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-25 01:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240124172501.360@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380861 |
On 2024-01-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 19:52:58 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> Dollar symbol ($) is an allowed extension. > > I wonder if we have DEC to thank for that ... ? Perhaps. You have to follow the money to find out where that came from. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-24 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87r0i65w9u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380824 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On 23/01/2024 21:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:32:09 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> It breaks the rule that, in C, variables and functions are alphnumeric,
>>> whilst operators are symbols.
>> Where is there such a “rule”?
>>
> Valid function names have to begin with an alphabetical symbol or
> (annoyingly for me) an underscore, as do variables. They may not
> contain non-alphanumerical symbols except for underscore. It's in the
> C standard somewhere.
The word you're looking for is "identifier". Function names have to be
identifiers.
> C operators are all non-alphanumerical symbols, with the exception of
> "sizeof". Again, the operators are listed in the C standard.
And _Alignof, introduced in C11.
>>> sizeof is an exception, but a justified one.
>> This is how religious people argue: they use circular reasoning to
>> say
>> something is justified because it is justified.
>>
> No. This isn't circular reasoning. It's a claim which hasn't been
> backed up. It's expected that the reader won't ask for this because it
> is so obvious that we can give sensible reasons for "sizeof" being a
> function-like alphabetical word rather than a symbol. But if you do,
> of course I'm sure someone will provide such a justification.
Most of the operators in C are represented by *punctuators*, sequences
of punctuation characters. The sizeof and _Alignof are keywords, not
punctuators. The standard also refers to "cast operators", so an
operator can have the form ( type-name ).
The above is a statement of facts about the language, not any kind of
value judgement. I see no need to provide a "justification" for the
fact that the sizeof operator is not represented by a punctuator. (All
too often, my explanations of what the C standard says are mistaken for
advocacy.)
You seem to have a strong reaction to the idea that the decision to make
sizeof a keyword was "justified". Would you care to expand on that
reaction? Do you object to it? If so, why?
I've worked in languages where some operators are puncuators (+, -, *, /)
and some are keywords (and, or, xor, rem, mod). I never found it to
be a problem.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 32 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 30 31 [32] 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web